Logic of Phantasy 115 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 115
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 24
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 24: Wednesday, June 21, 1967

And the fact that the statement, in order to understand me – to understand me in what I have just said – is
constituted by a signifying chain. This means that what, in the discourse, is the object of logic, is therefore limited at the start by formal conditions, and this indeed is what makes this logic be designated by the name of formal logic.

陈述的内容由意符的锁链所组成，（为了暸解我，为了暸解我刚刚说的话。）这意味着，在真理的論述，逻辑的客体因此從一開始就会受到正式條件的限制。这确实就是为什麽这个逻辑会用正式逻就的名義来指明。

Good, well then, there, at the start – certainly not stated at the start by the one who is here the great initiator, namely Aristotle, only stated by him in an ambiguous, partial, fashion, but undoubtedly brought out in subsequent progress – we see, at the level of what I called the “necessary conditions”, there being highlighted the function of negation so far as it excludes the third.

嗯，從一開始，我们就看出，在我所谓的「必要條件」的层次，负面的功用就被强调，因为它排除第三者。從一開始，做此陈述的並不是这位偉大創始者，亞里斯多德。他只是以模棱两可的局部的方式陈述，但是無可置疑的，在随後的進展中，明朗起来。

This means that something cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time from the same point of view. This, at least, is what Aristotle states. Expressly this.

这意味着，某件东西無法從相同的观点，同时被肯定及被否定。至少，这是亞里斯多德所陈述的。印象鲜明地这样陈述。

After all, we can indeed here, immediately, put in the margin what Freud affirms to us; that it is, nevertheless, not this principle which is called that of “non-contradiction”, a limit that brings to a halt … brings to a halt, what ? What is stated … in the unconscious.

畢竟，在此我们能够将佛洛伊德对我们所肯定的，马上從边缘插入。可是，这並不是所谓的「非矛盾原理」。有一個限制導致某件东西的停顿。在無意識界，所被陈述的东西。

As you know, Freud, from The interpretation of dreams on, underlines it. Contradiction – namely, that the same thing can be affirmed and denied very properly at the same time, and from the same angle – is what Freud designates for us as being the privilege, the property of the unconscious.

你们知道，從「梦的解析」開始，佛洛伊德就强调它。矛盾，换句话说，相同的东西能够同时，而且從相同的角度，適当地被肯定及否定。矛盾是佛洛伊德指明给我们，作为特权，適当地说，就是無意識界的特性。

If something were needed to confirm, to those into whose skull this has still not (4) entered, that the unconscious is structured like a language, I would say: how then could you even justify Freud taking care to underline this absence, in the unconscious, of the principle of non-contradiction? For the principle of non-contradiction has absolutely nothing to do with the real! It is not that there is no contradiction in the real, there is no question of contradiction in the real!

假如某件东西被需要作为肯定，对於某些人，这個东西还没有進人他们的頭顱，無意識界的结構像一個语言。我时常说，那麽你如何证明佛洛伊德小心翼翼在强调，在無意識界，非矛盾原理的这個「欠缺」？因为非矛盾原理跟真实界绝对没有任何關係！这倒不是在真实界，没有矛盾存在，而是在真实界，根本就没有矛盾的问题。

If the unconscious … Is that not so? Like those who, having to speak about the unconscious, anyway in places where, in principle, a teaching is given that begins by saying : “those in this room who believe that the unconscious is structured like a language may leave now!< Certainly they are quite right, because this proves that they already know it all! And that, in any case, they have no need to remain to learn that it is something different!

假如無意識没有矛盾原理、、、难道不是如此吗？就像那些人，必须谈論到無意識界，处於原则上是教学的環境，開始说：「教室里的人，若是相信無意識界的结構像一個语言，现在必须离開！」确实他们是相当正确，因为这证明，他们已经完全懂得無意識界！無論如何，他们没有必要始终保持只是知道，無意識界是某件不同的东西。

But this something different, if its is the “tendencies”, as they say, pure tendency or tension, in any case, huh!

但是这個不同的东西，好像它是这些「倾向」，如他们所说的，纯粹是倾向或是张力，無論如何！

There is no question of it being anything other than what it is! It can be composed, on occasion, according to the parallelogram of forces, it can be inverted – in so far as we suppose it has a direction – is that not so? But it is in a field that is always subject, as I might say, to composition!

無可置疑的，这個东西道道地地就是这個样子！有时候，它能够被组成，依照力量的平行四边形。它能够被倒转，因为我们認为它有個方向。难道不是如此吗？我不妨这样说，这個领域總是隸属於组成。

But, in the principle of contradiction, something else is at stake. It is a matter of negation. Negation is not found like that in a stream! You can go and look under a horse’s hoof and you will never find a negation!

但是在矛盾的原理，某件其它的东西岌岌可危。那就是「否定」的问题

Therefore, if it is underlined, if Freud, who all the same ought to know something about it, takes care to underline that the unconscious is not subject to the principle of contradiction, well then, it is indeed because, for him, there can be a question about whether it is subject to it! And if there is a question about whether it is subject to it, it is quite obviously because of what is seen: that it is structured like a language!

因此，假如它被强调，假如佛洛伊德，始终应该知道有關無意識界，会小心翼翼地强调，無意識界並不隸属於矛盾的原理。的确，对於他而言，無意識界是否隸属於矛盾原理，这個问题会存在。假如这個问题确实存在，显而易见的，那是因为表面看得见的东西：它的结構像一個语言！

In a language … the use of a language is prohibited. Which after all has the characteristics of a certain convention. The prohibition has a sense, the principle of contradiction functions or does not function. If one notes that it does not function somewhere, it is because it is a discourse that is at stake! To invoke it, means that the unconscious violates this logical law and that proves, at the same time, that it is installed in the logical field and that it articulates propositions.

在语言裡，一個语言的使用是被禁止的。畢竟，它拥有某一個傳统的特性。这种禁止有某种的意義，矛盾原理会發挥功用，或不会發挥功用，假如我们注意到，它在某個地方，没有發挥功用，那是因为它是一個岌岌可危的真理的論述！召唤这個真理論述意味着，無意識界違背这個逻辑的法则，同时证明，它被安置在逻辑的领域，它表達各种的主张。

So then, to recall this is not, of course, except incidentally, to return to basics, to principles, but rather, in this connection, to remind you that the logicians teach us that the law of non-contradiction – even though people were mistaken about it for a long time – is not the same thing. It is to be distinguished, from what is called the law of bivalence.

因此，提醒这一点，当然除了少数意外，它不是要回歸到基本的地方，回到原理，而是要提醒你们，關於这一点，逻辑專家教導我们，非矛盾法则並不相同，即使长久以来，很多人有这样的误解。非矛盾法则应该被区别出来，跟所谓的二原子价法则。

It is a different thing to prohibit in logical usage – in so far as it has given us the limited goals that I told you about earlier, limited in its field to assertive sentences, limited to the following: to bring out the necessary conditions so that from a statement there should be deduced a correct chain, namely, which permits the same assertion to (5) be made about another statement, an assertion which is affirmative or negative – it is a different thing to ground that and to say – the law of bivalence – every proposition is either true or false.

在逻辑用途的禁止是另外一回事。它给予我们这個有限的目标，我早先告诉过你们，在这個领域，它受限於表示主张的句子，受限於底下：显露这些必需要的條件，这样從一個陈述的内容，一個正确的意符锁链能够被推論得出来。换句话说，它容许相同的主张被表達，關於另外一個陈述的内容。無論这個主张是肯定，还是否定。要建立这样的基礎，並且说出，在二原子价的法则，每一個主张的建议要就是真实，要不然就是虚假。

I am not going to develop this any further here. First of all, because I already did so. I indicated from my first lectures of this year some … I gave some hints, to make you sense the degree to which it is easy to show that it is not simply because one does not know that a proposition can easily be constructed which makes you sense the degree to which this bivalence – this bivalence as decisive – is problematic. All the nuances that exist and which are inscribed in … between is it true that it is false? or it is false that it is true. It is not at all something linear, univocal and decided.

在此，我没有打算再進一步推演下去。首先，因为我已经發挥得差不多了，我從我今年的首先几次的演講，我就给予一些暗示，要让你们感受到这個程度，我们很容易显示，不僅僅因为我们不知道，一個主张的建议能够很容易被建構起来，使你感受到这個程度，这個二原子价，作为决定性的这個二原子价，是具有争议性的。所有被铭记在那里的存在的细微差異，在「这是虚假的，难道是事实？」及「这是真实的，难道会虚假？」之间。这個问题根本無法從直线、单一、及明确的方向来推演。

But, precisely, this indeed is what gives all its value to the presence of this dimension, which is ours, the one within which there is situated this discourse which we ask not to look any further, as I might say, than the tip of its nose. It is enough that you have to pose yourselves the question, I say to those who come into analysis with me, as to whether you should say that or not. The matter is settled. It is the clearest way to state the analytic aura.

但是的确，这确实就是为什麽这個向度的存在，会被给予它所有的价值。这个向度是我们的向度，这個真理論述的位置的向度。我不妨这样说，我们要求这個真理的向度单是瞧瞧自己鼻子尖端的位置就够了。我对那些前来跟我学習精神分析学的人说，關於你们是否应该那样说，你们必须跟自己提出这個问题，就足够了。问题就这样解决。这是最乾净俐落的方式，来陈述精神分析经验的氛围。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com